Which Mini for Aperture?

I am looking to purchase a Mini, and could use some guidance on which model to choose. Aside from the typical usage, I rely on Aperture, InDesign, and Photoshop. Not much in the way of gaming or video production. Does the discrete GPU have a significant impact on these types of uses, or am I better off going low end and upgrading to a faster hard drive and more RAM? Are there others out there running these apps on either machine?
Thanks in advance.

Hi!
I have a Mac mini 2,3 Ghz i5 (since a week) with 2GB memeory and I use Apperture, Canon Digital Photo Professional and sometimes Photoshop Elements 9. I use no further plugins.
The mini is connected via HDMI to a 1080p capable TV screen LG
and used as well as a media center (iTunes and playing TV-shows in DivX-format that I stream with Firefox).
Here my experience:
- Processor is ok - It hardly ever goes up above 100% (i.e. fills one of 4 cores) when using Aperture
     - editing by applying brushes is quite nice compared to my old setup.
     - nevertheless there are glitches like the cursor -frame is not shown or you see negative colours outside the edited areas.
- Memory and Swap: that is where the issue is:
     - All those 64-bit apps eat memory like fresh bread:
               - Apperture easyly goes up to 1,5GB - if you run it in 32-bit it is satisfied with 800MB
               - the Lion itself leaves only 1GB free memory when started
               - Photoshop used 600 MB two times
               - as a result I always end with swap between 1,5GB and 2,9GB
               - I use Aperture only in 32bit mode (otherwise the whole computer is too slow for even web-browsing or e-mail)
     - My next step will be to buy a 8GB memory upgrade.
     - It would be better to have a separate disk for the swap and one for the data. As you have Firewire 800 it is not a big issue to connect a quick disk that contains the data library. Reading of the library from the internal disk is seldom quicker than 2MB/s. Clearly the swap and the reading of media library is colliding
     - Well SSD ... I have no experience if that brings so much more in this particular case.
Summary:
     - Mac mini 2,3Ghz i5 2GB
     - buy a non-Apple 8GB memory
     - nice RAID1 disk via Firewire 800
I hope this helps

Similar Messages

Which mini for server?

Hello,
I'm considering a mac mini server to replace (or coexist with) my qnap ts-509 and I have a few questions. This is for home use but I do work from home as well with large files.
The first is which model Mini should I get. The server version is a quad, is there real benefits running a server on a quad rather than the standard mini? My plan is to replace the hd for an SSd at home with max ram, but what are the benefits of the quad server mac as opposed to getting the base model then adding ssd, extra ram and lion server??
Also, I currently have 5tb raided on my ts-509 and I am using about 1.8tb. Should I carry on using the qnap for storage with the mini providing server functions? Or should I move the qnap off site and set up a regular backup, in which case what would I use for fast raided storage? Something thunderbolt connected?
BTW I have cat5e running around the house into an HP gig-e switch. The current qnap has 2 ethernets running into it for load balancing, can I achieve the same with a Ethernet to USB adapter?
Sorry for the long post, any advice much appreciated!!!
Max

I went for the non-server dual core i7 with AMD GPU and am very happy with it. Do quite a bit of Aperture work and it never misses a beat (so far). I'm not a fan of integrated Intel graphics and wouldn't trust it for HTPC duties.
I'm not sure how many/much of the 'server' functionality you're going to be using as it sounds more like file transfer and other tasks that could be accomplished through normal Lion.
Unless I'm missing something I assume the two hard drives in the Mini Server are just as much of a pain to replace as the one in the non-server Mini so I didn't see the point of having a two hard disc Mini.
For your requirements I would definitely look at how much of the server functionality you really need to utilise, and if the answer is 'not much' I'd recommend the i5 or i7 non-server Mini with AMD GPU and some sort of NAS, plus a sensible offsite backup plan for your data.

Mac mini i5 good for aperture?

Is anybody using one of the new minis for aperture?
I currently have a 2.26 GHz C2D Mini (the last one with "cookie box" case) with 8GB RAM and a 7.2krpm HD and a 2.4 GHz MBP. Both run aperture3 o.k. but performance is not really snappy with 21 Megapixel RAWs. Would an upgrade to a new i5 mini be a real improvement? I recall something about aperture using the graphics card a lot for offloading and that with big Images you need a lot of VRAM. Are the 256 MB enough or do I need 512MB (which as far as I know is not possible in the mini). Unfortunately an iMac ist out of the question because I cannot stand glossy displays and I already have a 27" screen that ist better than the iMacs integrated screen.

I am using a Mac Mini to do all sorts of things in GB-2. I would recommend getting the 1.42Ghz model. I would also recommend the Firewire Solo as your input device. Because it is Firewire, it will not rob any of the valuable CPU resources.
Note also the the Mac Mini has a slow hard drive, but for two inputs, I doubt this will be a problem. Just be aware of it.

Which Mac mini for home server, Aperture & HTPC

Hi,
I'm buying a Mac mini for:
- home / small business server
- Occasional HTPC usage (will be hooked to my TV via HDMI)
- Occasional Aperture / iPhoto usage (minimal iMovie)
Which one is most suitable for this?
I was planing to go for Server version (with bumped up RAM to 8GB), but now I read about video card and I'm not 100% anymore.
I will NOT use it for 3D - gaming or similar tasks!
Thak you all for help!
Vasja

I went for the non-server dual core i7 with AMD GPU and am very happy with it. Do quite a bit of Aperture work and it never misses a beat (so far). I'm not a fan of integrated Intel graphics and wouldn't trust it for HTPC duties.
I'm not sure how many/much of the 'server' functionality you're going to be using as it sounds more like file transfer and other tasks that could be accomplished through normal Lion.
Unless I'm missing something I assume the two hard drives in the Mini Server are just as much of a pain to replace as the one in the non-server Mini so I didn't see the point of having a two hard disc Mini.
For your requirements I would definitely look at how much of the server functionality you really need to utilise, and if the answer is 'not much' I'd recommend the i5 or i7 non-server Mini with AMD GPU and some sort of NAS, plus a sensible offsite backup plan for your data.

Which MAC better suited for Aperture ?

I've a budget around 1900-2000 euro (more or less the same price in US dollars for the US market)
The choice would be either one of the new iMac or a MacBookPro ...
In both cases there is some level of choice whether to invest money on:
1) either go for the model with more performing video card
2) either the model with more performing CPU or more RAM or (even) a solid-state disk
Just to make it clear: I'm not a pro, I've been able to use Aperture, till now, on a 2007 MacBook
and I didn't feel so bad as regards managing previews, while I'd like some more horsepower
while editing single images (as soon as the list of adjustments applied gets long, the spinning
beach ball takes home on my screen and I have to wait more and more time !)
... The time needed to zoom in at 100% is annoying to ...
So the question is: are these operations (adjustments, zooming into the image) demanding more
on CPU, or on GPU or ... what else ?
To make an example: would a MacBookPro be performing more fast than an iMac
(I don't care of the smaller screen size, since I'm used to adjust images at 100% zoom) ?
Is it worth going to the MacBookPro with Radeon HD 6750M and 1GB memory, or would
a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB perform as well, investing the saved money in more
RAM ?
Speaking of photo applications I'd naively suppose it's better to go with a more performing GPU,
but probably most of the GPU power is reserved for film encoding/decoding, not for photo adjustments ...
Thank you for your help

Whatever you get you want an SSD. That makes iMacs relatively very expensive.
Mobility is a HUGE benefit. iMacs lack mobility.
Top 2011 MBPs with SSD are true desktop replacement boxes. Very strong performance and Thunderbolt removes the achilles heel of past laptops, i/o. Previously I had a Mac Pro plus Macbook Pro workflow and it worked. Now I have a desktop-replacement 2011 MBP and it is way better. If you sell your current laptop and apply the money to a new MBP + external display the MBP comparison price gets very attractive as compared to MBP plus iMac.
Aperture runs well on 8 GB RAM, and in any event 2011 MBPs will take 16 GB RAM. Currently prices are unacceptably high for the required 8 GB DIMMs but the capability is there when prices fall, which they will. As you do your analyses include RAM to 8 GB (post-purchase via third party, much cheaper).
iMacs have glossy-only displays. Many image pros including me find those displays unacceptable. MBPs have matte displays available. New Macbook Airs (MBAs) are glossy too, but seem to present less glare than iMacs do. Each individual needs to visually compare displays before purchasing.
MBAs are the low end for heavy graphics apps like Aperture, not recommended.
I own a 17" 2011 MBP with SSD and 8 GB RAM and Aperture flies on it. Adding SSD to a top 2011 MBP costs only +$100, and the optical drive can inexpensively be replaced with a third-party hard drive of up to 1000 GB (1 TB) when necessary. IMO an SSD is a necessity, not an option.
During desktop use fast external hard drives like Promise Thunderbolt RAID arrays can be added, as can quality non-glossy displays like the $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb or the better NEC 2490. I have the Viewsonic aligned above a 17" MBP and it is a nice combination. Two displays IMO is much preferable for graphics work.
SSD is a huge boost. I put OS, apps, Library and Referenced Masters on the SSD, then relocate the Masters to external drives when editing is complete. Aperture performance is essentially instant.
BareFeats.com has relative graphics performance tests up at:
http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
Insights from Rob Art Morgan at Barefeats:
"Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
From an earlier post of mine regarding Aperture hardware:
Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Although many Macs will run Aperture, those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
All new Macs have Thunderbolt, so as of 2011 we can scratch i/o as a performance limiter (except see SSD comments below).
Aperture (3.1.2, OS 10.6.8) seems to like about 4 GB of RAM all to itself. On 2011 boxes 8 GB RAM generally works well with multiple concurrent apps. From the standpoint of cost-effective upgrading, adding third party RAM to achieve 8 GB or more is something every Aperture user should do. By the time we reach v4 Aperture I would bet that having more than 8 GB RAM on board will be useful; it may be already with Lion, but I have not been running Lion due to known issues with Adobe apps.
Graphics in 2011 Macs vary widely, so IMO the graphics processing unit (GPU) may be the most important variable for comparing new Aperture boxes in 2011 . The GPU itself is important, but even more importantly evaluating the GPU strength turns out to be a pretty good way to compare 2011 Mac Aperture performance.
Relatively real-world 2011 graphics hardware test results on pro applications have been performed by well-respected testers, see below. I have not yet seen meaningful Aperture-specific tests, however experience since v1 Aperture has been that Aperture performance has been keenly dependent upon the strength of the graphics processor. E.g. a Mac Pro with lame graphics card will underperform on Aperture.
In my experience (2011 17" MBP) the benefits of SSDs are huge. I consider the fastest Aperture workflow to have both Library and Referenced Masters on SSD, then when work on a Project is complete the Referenced Masters are relocated to hard drives. I am doing that now and everything on the box is essentially instant.
Comparative Final Cut Pro test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others also are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g12.html
Comparative 2011 MBP Graphics test results at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/mbps04.html
INSIGHTS from BareFeats.com:
"1. The 2011 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz MacBook Pro with Radeon 6750M graphics (1GB GDDR5) is a 'different animal' from the 2011 2.0GHz MacBook Pro with the Radeon 6490M graphics (256MB GDDR5). Is it worth $300 more (comparably equipped). Yes, when you consider you are getting a faster CPU and much faster GPU.
2. The 2011 2.7GHz MacBook Pro with Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics does little or nothing to improve the 3D graphics performance compared to the GeForce 320M integrated graphics in the 2010 MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro."
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Since upgrading to Aperture 3.3, when I try to sync photos to my iPhone, I'm getting all versions in a stack loading onto my phone, which makes for some ugly pics, as well as taking up nearly double the space.

Since upgrading to Aperture 3.3, when I try to sync photos to my iPhone, I'm getting all versions in a stack loading onto my phone, which makes for some ugly pics, as well as taking up nearly double the space.

Could it be the problem lies with iTunes and not Aperture? iTunes 10.6.3 was released on the same day as Aperture 3.3 -- June 11.
If someone has a configuration to test an older version of Aperture with iTunes 10.6.3 to see if the problem exists, that could be helpful.

Which Ipad mini for 2 Daughters Help

Hello,
I'm looking into buying 2 Ipads mini for my 11 and 13 years old daughters for Christmas. I'm familiar with most Apple products but not much when it comes to Ipads.
I came across to the mini ipad 2 retina 32GB on sale for $299 however I'm not sure if the model and size (32GB) are suitable for them. There's the mini 3 which is more expensive.
Thanks in advance.

The biggest issue you could face with a 2 instead of a 3 is that MAYBE the 2 will max out on iOS updates sooner than the 3. And it is just a maybe because none of us know when devices max out. The iPad 1 stopped at iOS 5.1.1, the iPad 2 was eligible for the latest iOS update, which is 8.1.2, but did not get all the features, nor did it get all the features of iOS7.
So the 3 offers you the longest compatibility. That said, unless you're continually looking for new apps that won't make much of a difference. For example, when my iPad 2 maxes out then the apps that are on it would continue to work, I just couldn't get any newer versions or may eventually have issues finding compatible new apps.
Given that it's for children, Id' go for the Mini 2. I would also recommend apple care plus, which is an extended warranty. However it covers up to 2 instances of accidental damage repair. Say your daughter drops it. With Apple Care plus you'll pay a $49 fee for a replacement, without it you'll pay 219 for that same replacement.

Which Mini-PCI card for Satellite 1130-Z31?

Can anyone tell me which Mini-PCI card would be compatible with a Satellite 1130-Z31 notebook? The system should use IEEE 802.11b.
With thanks

Hello
For your unit there is Wireless LAN Mini PCI Card (2,4GHz, 802.11b) with PA3212U-1MPC part number compatible.
In the future if you need some information check http://eu.computers.toshiba-europe.com . Under Products > Options & Accessories you can find all you need.
Bye

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

The smtp outgoing server which works for Ipad will not work for iPad mini?

Why would the out going server which works for iPad not work on iPad mini

Mike found this from the website from your email provider make sure your using the imap server unless you want to use pop on your device.
Incoming Mail (POP3) Server:
pop.bellaliant.net
imap.bellaliant.net
Outgoing Mail (SMTP) Server:
smtp.bellaliant.net
imap.bellaliant.net
Incoming Mail Server Username
Your full e-mail address

Which Model 13" MBP for Aperture?

I am a heavy user of Aperture, and keep several other apps open constantly. I currently have a 2010 13" MBP that I've upgraded to 8GB, and it's always running right up against the limit of RAM.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Should I pay up for the top processor, or would the basic 2.5 GHz i5 still give me a boost?
Will the newer model and SSD give me a big boost, or do I really need to go for a 15" and 16GB? I don't do video, just photos, but I process a lot of them.
I want the 13" for portability.
Any advice appreciated.

SunnyShots wrote:
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Believe it or not, yes.
SSD's have limited write capability, likely won't reach it, but if your drive is filled up, then the small space remaining can be exhausted and the 10% of spares used, then your SSD can prematurely die.
My advice is to get one with at least twice as much space as your ever going to use.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
Upgrade to a a top end 15" anti-glare instead. The Retina's are overrated, hot blow on the display, and you don't use the resolution its capable of anyway.
The 15" has a discrete GPU so it keeps the heat off the CPU, it's faster and lasts longer through annual OS X upgrades.
The anti-glare screen you can see the screen clear in just about any environment, no so with the glossy Retina's.
I'm very surprised working with photo's you are fast to accept glossy displays, most photographers howl at them because the glare blocks the screen image.
Get a anti-glare while you still can, it seems Apple doesn't care about the pro market by discontinuing them.
https://macmatte.wordpress.com/
But I process a lot of them. I want the 13" for portability.
You really need the graphics performance of the 15", the 13" only has Intel HD CPU graphics, equal to your $400 office store PC.
The slightly extra screen real estate of the 15" is nice, (more so on the 17" but they quit those) no need to sit with the thing on your chest to use it.
The weight difference is slightly more, your driving a vehicle most likely, either way it's really not a big deal breaker, but the larger screen and better graphics performance is going to come in handy with lots of RAM and a SSD, especially for Aperture and a lot of photo's (I know)

I'm confused on which OS is needed for Aperture 3

I was going to purchase Aperture 3 for organizing and editing my photo library. As I am having some problems editing with Aperture 2 using OS X 10.9.5 (Maverick)
I read the specifications for Aperture 3 from the Apple store and it stated that "Mac OS X 10.9" (or later). is what's need for the OS.
But when I went to purchase it from the App store it states "Compatibility OS X 10.10" (or later).
Thus the confusion.
Will the Aperture 3 download form the app store work using Maverick 10.9.5. I don't really want to upgrade the OS to Yosemite?
Thanks
JS

I tested to launch Aperture 3.6 from my Mavericks partition, but no go. It will not launch, not even the binary in the Application package. It is giving this error message.
/My_HD/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/MacOS/Aperture ; exit;
application requires at least Mac OS X version 10.10.0 (10.10), but is being run on 10.9.5 ( 10.9.5/13F34), and so is exiting.Abort trap: 6
logout
You could try two things:
Search for a boxed Aperture 3 upgrade installer at Ebay or Amazon. This will install an early Aperture 3 version, and you can update this early version using the Aperture 3 updaters from the Supports Download page to Aperture 3.4.5. Then try the update to Aperture 3.5.1. Only, this will probably be much more expensive than buying from the AppStore.
Try to buy Aperture 3 from the AppStore. It should not download Aperture 3.6 while you are running Mavericks, but offer to download Aperture 3.5.1, or refuse to download.

Which New MacBook Pro for Aperture...?

I'm need to get another Mac laptop and would like to get one of the new 15" MacBook Pro models. It seems like the entry-level model is the sweet spot this time. I would have to pay $500 more to get more VRAM and 50GB more disk space and a slightly faster processor. For Aperture it's all about the graphics card and both of the 15" models have the same card except the cheaper one has 256mb VRAM and the other has 512.
Would I notice the difference (with Aperture) between 256 and 512 on the VRAM? I think this is the deciding factor.
Thanks,
Robert

I'm not so sure about the need for 512 MB as opposed to 256. I'm running Aperture on a two year old iMac with 128 MB of GPU RAM and it works just fine. A 512 MB card is not inherently faster than a 256 card; in fact, unless those extra 256 MB are used, they are just as fast.
On the other hand you will most certainly benefit from the larger L2 cache. There is no question that the 2.5 model is a faster computer when running Aperture but I personally think that the $500 price difference between the 2.4 and 2.5 model is just a little too much. I will probably order the cheaper model and save that $500 towards a D300 instead!
/Martin

I have installed hydra express plugin for Aperture many time with no success

I have installed hydra express plugin for Aperture many time with no success. When I select edit with plugin hydra, the make an HDR image with hydra appears. When I hit the process button a message states that hydra is not found. I have checked in my application support folder. There is no plugin folder for aperture or a hydra plugin.
Any help would be appreciated.

Plug-ins get installed in one of two locations.
~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins/Edit
or
/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins/Edit
The second is for all users of the machine and is located in the root folder of your system drive (often "Macintosh HD").
The first is your private library (note the ~ symbol which a shortcut to your user folder) and means the plugin is just for you. ~/Library is hidden by default so finder wont see it. To see it in Finder, use the menu "Go->Go to folder" and type in ~/Library as the folder name. Then you can natigate to /Application Support/ etc....
That should help you determine if it's installed. Note, you may only find an alias in the plug-in folder and the programs may actually be stored elsewhere. Also, if the Plugin can be used for export as well as edit, it might be located in /Plug-Ins rather than /Plug-Ins/Edit
In terms of why it isn't working, I think I may have a clue to what's going on. Sometimes plugins use utilitly shell commands that get distributed with the plugin. These can get quarantined by Macs Gatekeep security because they are not signed by a 'valid' developer.
I've recently taken on the task of making the old Enfuse plugin compatible with the latest version of Aperture, and ran into this gatekeep quarantine issue. I got around it by de-quarantine the required commands and got the plugin working.
For distribution, I've put an AppleScript together which installs the plugin and takes care of the quarantine issue, but I am just (literally today) tesing that on a different machine to make sure it works the same as it does on mine.
If you can first confirm that hydra is installed in one of the above locations, I'll then talk you through how to check if there is a quarantine issue with it.
-Andy

Macpro config for Aperture

Hi guys
I have the very first macpro ever released, the old 2 x dual core 2.66ghz xeon 5150's and 16gb ram. I have the nvidia 8800gt which i bought a while back when my old ati 1900xt card died.
I'm running 2 x 30" screens.
I'm thinking now is the time where a new one would give a bit of speed boost.
Can anyone suggest a ideal config for Aperture? My cameras are 1Ds mk3's and my aperture library is around 1.4tb at the moment.
I'm thinking the (obscenely priced) 2.93 8 core with 16gb ram from transintl.com and the radeon 4870.
I have lots of hard drives already I can put in it.
thanks

Your existing box (the same as mine) is still very good. Personally I would wait to replace it; at least until we see real-world Aperture performance on the new boxes for a month or two to help determine optimum configuration.
The CPU clock upgrades above the 2.26 8-core are ridiculously expensive, probably not cost effective. Wait until the end of the year and I bet we will see price drop and/or speed bump.
The Radeon 4870 is alleged to perhaps work on our 2006 Macs. Wait and see if it does. Barefeats.com will have tests.
My guess is that careful RAID array of fast hard drives & Library configuration (Referenced Masters Library perhaps?) might help performance on the existing box a great deal.
Wait too for memory tests before you add RAM to a 2009 MP. Early reports suggest groups of 6 rather than 8 DIMMs. Again, barefeats.com will have tests.
-Allen Wicks

Which Mini for Aperture?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for